Ditching Forts Mid-Siege

[Abe]

I just assume they're trying to lock defenders in there so they stay for the free rewards and allows them attack a different, underdefended fort.

yes i am afraid this is what we are down to, it is no fun getting crushed in the fort over and over and this is the result

[CountTalabecland]

while the original defenders are still occupied at the 1st fort.

Why you stay defending a empty fort?? Just leave and go to def the second one.

Because when this is happening destro has like a 200 person population advantage, the people that got into the first fort aren't needed to zerg the 2nd zone. All they are doing is insuring that the first fort is a loss. The fort shouldn't be "empty" to begin with.

Order doesn't even have to abandon any rewards because they know that it will take longer to open the 2nd fort than it will for the clock to expire on the now empty fort. So if by the time dest gets to the 2nd fort, those same Order are there, why would destro fair any better the 2nd time/why not just try to actually win the 1st fort?

This strategy is not a real double push. A doublt fort needs the Defenders to have two forts open at the SAME time.

[M0rw47h]

People just come for invaders, don't care about fort itself. At least, I do.

[CountTalabecland]

Spoiler:

There's already a coming change in next patch that will help regarding this:

[Fortresses]

The time left on forts will start ticking down faster if certain conditions are met:
- It is stage 2
- There is less than 30 minutes left of the fort (15 minutes has passed in the stage)
- The door health is 100%
- The defenders have held all five flags for at least two minutes.

If all the above conditions are met, the time left will start ticking down five times faster.

Thank you for letting us know. If I am understanding this right, abandoning a fort will mean that an attacker will lose faster and thus have less time to push a 2nd zone. Which should hopefully put an end to ppl rushing to get a fort and then bail 10 minutes later. I assume the end effect of this is that zergs will actually have to split and push separate zones to make sure the pre-fort zones lock at the same time.

[horuson]

Ditching mid siege isnt about effectiveness imo, like other destros told here

When you dont have FMJ or any organized wb in a fort, pretty much everyone with some knowledge knows it's already doomed, so you either leave instant or try one push and then leave for the next fort or keep

We cant win fort when 80% of destros in fort are not in 2/2/2, 50% of them not even using pots, most of tanks not respecing for forts, players watching tv in their open wb without any lead... And you know what most do after losing ? blaming balance lol they are not even trying to carry themself in the first place, randoms are not tryharding fort, they dont want to join 2/2/2 wbs... so once you understood that and you notice there isnt FMJ or any god wb, you leech your 2inv and leave

[Gurf]

Ditching fort to the second is a legit tactic, but yesterday was taking it to another level to ditch before the second zone was even that close to being taken. The second door on the keep wasn't even down before they ditched and the Ram was dead by the time they got there, they all arrived in the zone and just ran around the keep in circles for about 15 minutes, (which didn't stop defenders getting in as inner door wasn't tagged), just a big fail and waste of everyones time. The Devs have made adjustments to Forts almost every patch recently, but still people complain about how hard forts are and ditch before even trying one push.

[Dondabon]

There's already a coming change in next patch that will help regarding this:

[Fortresses]

The time left on forts will start ticking down faster if certain conditions are met:
- It is stage 2
- There is less than 30 minutes left of the fort (15 minutes has passed in the stage)
- The door health is 100%
- The defenders have held all five flags for at least two minutes.

If all the above conditions are met, the time left will start ticking down five times faster.

I don't think this will help a lot, as it is not designed to solve root of the issue, but consequence. The real issue is why people are abandoning fort in the first place. And I feel you are overestimating how much of this is up to strategy. It might have started that way, but now people are leaving cos there is no incentive to stay. As someone already mentioned it is a boring content for most of the people, where rewards in most cases are same if you stay for full 45min duration, or if you leave after 15-20min.

@Carthage I agree with some of the previous comments, I don't think forcing people to stay would solve anything. People would just stay afk instead of leaving it.

Here is how I see some potential issues and suggestions:
1) Recent change of having to keep BOs in order for them to be efficient is right direction, but I think it needs to go a step forward. Now you are forcing attackers not to zerg and to defend what they capture, but there is nothing preventing defenders to go as huge blob and just cap everything around, in the circle. Is it possible to change this further, so that if defender takes BO back, but doesn't keep control for at least 30 sec (might need to be adjusted) timer for attacker doesn't reset? So, for example if Attacker keeps BO for 45sec, then Defenders cap it back and lose it after 15sec timer would continue on 45sec for Attacker? This would also incentivize defenders to fight on BOs as well, instead of zerging.
2) Organized guilds hate forts, at least on Destro side. It is not uncommon for them to make decision even before fort starts that they will not go in, if there are any open zones to continue fighting. Reason is that they want somewhat interesting and fair fights, that forts cannot provide. Further issue here is that, in most cases, those WBs will have most contribution, so that is straight away 24ppl less in fort that will be filled with pugs, reducing any chance of victory for attackers. Possible solution would be to ask people would they like to participate in fort, based on contribution, instead of giving it straight away. This way those players can press no, and reservations would be passed to next 24 ppl with highest contribution. Not ideal, but I think its slightly better and I don't see solution where you would force those guilds to participate (neither you should). Is this possible?
3) Rewards for losing side are very bad, as it's impossible for people to get any bags. When you add destro mentality of "we will lose this 99%, there is no FMJ to push this for us, I might as well just leave" it leads to people leaving after 20min. This could be solved with adding some bags for both sides as reward. This way people who stay know they are fighting for something, even if they lose. If you think gold bags would be too much, you can make similar reward system as in cities now - blue bag is highest you can get if you lose.
4) Forts are very advantageous for defending side. I never saw that side that had equal number of organized 2-2-2 WBs lost, while they are defending. This is applicable for both Destro and Order, but Order tends to be more invested more into forts, so it can be better and more frequently seen there. No real solution here
5) Stage 3 is very boring to participate in, as there is almost no real strategy. Pop m4, wiggle through the door, yell at people to do the same and hope that you have better gear and do more dmg/healing if you attack. If you defend pop m4, drop everything on the door and hope you have more dmg/healing. New change with flying on top of the keep is more meme than something useful, but it could work with some changes? Maybe add that those birds are taking 3-6 people at once and they all get you at the same place, but increase cd? This way you would get 12-24 man simultaneously behind defenders and hope that they are good enough to hold off till reinforcements come/to hold some kind of damage on backline.

Or, if nothing works just admit defeat and do the same it was done on live - remove forts for good, have scheduled cities once per day/2days for both time zones and provide invader medals this way as well. At least people would know when cities will happen, so hopefully we would have more organized groups and good fights there.

P.S. sorry about this huge post, just realized how long it is once I posted it

[Gurf]

The incentive was a 5* City , which ended up being pushed early morning instead

[dirnsterer]

For some sitting at a small doorway, spamming aoe is height of the gaming experience. For a lot of people it just is not.

[Cadien]

The incentive was a 5* City , which ended up being pushed early morning instead

This is, I think, one of the more interesting points. Defending a fortress siege should be a complete positive for defenders. However, at a certain point there is a strong incentive in the opposite direction. So, even if your defense is qualitatively the best experience it can be - full of harrowing push defenses, last minute saves, and evenly-matched competition - there's still the sting at the end when you realize that you've just prevented yourself from getting into city. Then city comes at some awful time when everyone is asleep, so all of your effort remains unrewarded. It can be frustrating.

Successfully defending a fortress should be a wholly positive feeling.